Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: Serosorting. (Read 3804 times)

I have just read the article on 'serosorting' linked on the home page of TheBody in which a couple of 'experts' argue that far from being a 'safe-sex practice' it could actually increase the transmission rate of HIV.

Must admit that I had never heard of the term before but from my reading of the article it means that a HIV+ person only has unprotected sex with another HIV+ person. These 'experts' argue that because HIV cannot be detected in the first 6-8 weeks after infection some people will report as being HIV-, without lying, have unprotected sex and so infect their partner.

Now, who does not understand the term serosorting? Is it me or is it these so-called experts (who even used a mathematical model to prove their theory)? To me the flip side of 'a HIV+ person only having unprotected sex with another HIV+ person' is that a HIV+ person DOES NOT have unprotected sex with a HIV- person.

Surely the risk of being infected by a HIV+ person who has not yet been diagnosed is part of the normal risk of having unprotected sex. I cannot see what this has to do with serosorting.

I guess what I worry about when it comes to people who serosort, and use it for a reason to have unprotected sex is that it increases the prevalence of other STDs in the population. The presence of another STD in an HIV infected person increases the risk of transmission. So even if you exclusively serosort, you may give somebody who doesn't gornorrhoea, which increases their chances of transmitting HIV to a negative person. On a population basis, this stuff is significant.

And yes, I also worry about superinfections, and whether we are setting ourselves up for disaster - it has already been shown in the multi-drug resistant case in New York that, although it was not as bad as the hype, that drug resistant HIV can be transmitted from one person to another.

So it's not enough, IMHO to exclusively serosort, unless everybody you're having sex with is as well. Personally, I miss having sex with other pozzies. Not because I barebacked, but because it was just easier and involved less worrying.

You're missing half of the picture of the serosorting controversy being discussed in the article.

It is not the worry of HIV+ men who serosort but of HIV- men who do.

In other words - there are those who believe they are negative and are having unprotected sex with other perceived neg partners....only to find out that maybe someone wasn't negative after all.

I am really not sure if it is me that is missing half the pic or whether it is you. As I said in my original post, I am not sure what 'serosort' means. From the article it appears to mean HIV+ having unprotected sex with HIV+, if that is correct then it is you who miss half the picture. It seems that you interpret 'serosort' as HIV- having unprotected sex with HIV- (only to find out that maybe someone wasn't negative after all), if you are correct then I agree, I am missing half the picture. My main problem with your definition of 'serosort', what is different from what has always been?

I guess what I worry about when it comes to people who serosort, and use it for a reason to have unprotected sex is that it increases the prevalence of other STDs in the population. The presence of another STD in an HIV infected person increases the risk of transmission. So even if you exclusively serosort, you may give somebody who doesn't gornorrhoea, which increases their chances of transmitting HIV to a negative person. On a population basis, this stuff is significant.

And yes, I also worry about superinfections, and whether we are setting ourselves up for disaster - it has already been shown in the multi-drug resistant case in New York that, although it was not as bad as the hype, that drug resistant HIV can be transmitted from one person to another.

So it's not enough, IMHO to exclusively serosort, unless everybody you're having sex with is as well. Personally, I miss having sex with other pozzies. Not because I barebacked, but because it was just easier and involved less worrying.

M.

Agree/disagree. What does SEROSORTING actually mean? My understanding, from the article is that it means HIV+ having unprotected sex ONLY ONLY ONLY with another HIV+ so that we don't transmit HIV. So, if you ARE HIV+ sure you can transmit ghonorreah (and all the other STDs) but so can HIV-s.

The word 'serosorting' has a specific meaning = HIV+ AND HIV+. Sorry guys, the both of you who replied have not missed half the picture - you have missed the whole picture, just like the experts who wrote the article. The issues that you bring up are real concerns but they are concerns for HIV- as well as HIV+. Serosorting refers only to HIV+

Serosorting means choosing primarily or exclusively to have sex, usually unprotected, with people who have the same HIV status as yourself. That means BOTH HIV+ having sex with HIV+ AND HIV- having sex with HIV-. Hence the 'half the picture' reference. Some argue this strategy might work as a means to prevent transmission from HIV+ to HIV-. Because of the window between infection and diagnosis it is doubtful if this strategy really serves HIV- people - because someone can be HIV+ but actually still identifying as HIV-.

1. passing on other STD\\\'s that are poetentially fatal to people with HIV and even to HIV- people

2. passing on drug resistant strains of HIV or other STD\\\'s

3. Not everyone who serosorts is an exclusive serosorter, meaning they can eventually pass on wild type HIV or a drug resistant strain to an HIV negative partner.

Now I know I am going to get a lot of \\\"Well it is up to each person to protect themselves.\\\" sort of comments. But how can we not prevent even one person from getting this if we can? I still think that properly used condoms and accurate information on transmission are the only ways to keep this pandemic from getting worse. Is unprotected sex really so important as to supercede the greater good of our fellow human beings? I know humans are selfish by nature, but by putting out HIV resistant strains out there, we are working against ourselves and those who still have the chance to remain negative.

3. Not everyone who serosorts is an exclusive serosorter, meaning they can eventually pass on wild type HIV or a drug resistant strain to an HIV negative partner.

that's a rather disingenuous statement. Serosorting implies exclusivity by definition. It they're not doing it all the time, then by definition they're not serosorting, so you're comment there is a red herring.

Serosorting means choosing primarily or exclusively to have sex, usually unprotected, with people who have the same HIV status as yourself. That means BOTH HIV+ having sex with HIV+ AND HIV- having sex with HIV-. Hence the 'half the picture' reference. Some argue this strategy might work as a means to prevent transmission from HIV+ to HIV-. Because of the window between infection and diagnosis it is doubtful if this strategy really serves HIV- people - because someone can be HIV+ but actually still identifying as HIV-.

Does that clarify?

Sorry but I think you misinterpret "serosorting" - for thousands of years there has been sex - male/female, male/male, female/female. Now we have new problem = HIV, so we need new word = serosorting = exclusively HIV+ and HIV+.

What I say is that those who argue that "this strategy might work as a means to prevent transmission from HIV+ to HIV-. " do not understand the word SEROSORT, it only refers to the HIV+

However, if you were to make the case that it should only be recommended for positive people I would tend to agree, but you're not really making just that case. You're asking to redefine the word other than how it's used in professional circles.

"HIV-negative gay men in Sydney, Australia, are increasingly selecting other HIV-negative men for unprotected casual anal sex, according to a study published in the May 15th edition of AIDS. The practice of deliberately selecting partners of the same HIV status Ė often called ďserosortingĒ Ė has been well described amongst HIV-positive gay men and even been credited with contributing to a fall in HIV incidence in San Francisco."

I still don't think it's a great strategy for HIV negative men to use. It's dependent on frequent testing and trust... and we all know how far that takes you with many sexual partners.

Frankly I wouldn't even recommend it in a HIV-negative relationship, but I know I'm being a prude. I base this mostly on first hand experience of an acquaintance in the late 90's who tested positive and took something like 3 years to fess up to his boyfriend who he lived with. This was a friend of a friend, so I didn't interject myself and didn't really know the boyfriend except as an abstraction. I was simply aghast. I think the queen even at one point was insisting that his initial HIV test had been wrong, though we all knew he was lying. I think somehow the boyfriend never became infected though.

1. passing on other STD\\\'s that are poetentially fatal to people with HIV and even to HIV- people

2. passing on drug resistant strains of HIV or other STD\\\'s

3. Not everyone who serosorts is an exclusive serosorter, meaning they can eventually pass on wild type HIV or a drug resistant strain to an HIV negative partner.

Now I know I am going to get a lot of \\\"Well it is up to each person to protect themselves.\\\" sort of comments. But how can we not prevent even one person from getting this if we can? I still think that properly used condoms and accurate information on transmission are the only ways to keep this pandemic from getting worse. Is unprotected sex really so important as to supercede the greater good of our fellow human beings? I know humans are selfish by nature, but by putting out HIV resistant strains out there, we are working against ourselves and those who still have the chance to remain negative.

Yes, totally agree, serosorting will not stop transmitting STDs. It is not meant to do that. It is a means whereby HIV+ people try not to pass the HIV virus to people who don't have it.

'passing on drug resistant strains of HIV or other STDs' I already got HIV! Other STDs? Is same problem for everybody whether HIV+ or HIV-

Wow, tell me something new 'Not everyone who serosorts is an exclusive serosorter' Do you mean to imply that everyone who has herpes only has sex with someone else who has herpes?

This comment is not only for you, it is for just about everyone who post in this thread = get real guys. Not one of you try to answer the point of why I start this thread. These "experts" say that serosorting may increase the risk of infection of HIV. I say their argument is bullshit. Reason being that there is no way I have sex ever again, unless it is with female who is certified as HIV+. How the hell do I increase the risk of transmitting HIV? Sure, sure, sure, there are people who are HIV+ say that they are not transmit this fucking virus, so what is new. You reckon that people who have herpes, ghonnoreah are always truthful? Just look at every one of your points against me and ask yourself 'does this apply to the HIV+ only or does it also apply to HIV-? My main argument is that the proposition of these "experts" is bullshit, they only say it so that they increase their income and you guys fall for it??

However, if you were to make the case that it should only be recommended for positive people I would tend to agree, but you're not really making just that case. You're asking to redefine the word other than how it's used in professional circles.

Read the next post by keyite and then come back, make the same arguments.

These "experts" say that serosorting may increase the risk of infection of HIV. I say their argument is bullshit.

It's not bullshit at all, James. Serosorting applies to both +/+ and -/- people having sex. It is the neg/neg serosorts that may increase the risk of infection. There is no way to be sure that anyone is negative, unless they have been in a monogamous relationship with another negative person (or abstained, of course). So, for the more casual neg/neg hook-ups, how does one know that they or their sexual partner is really negative?? I'm not saying someone is not being truthful, they may truly think they are negative, but relying on someone's perceived negative status is like playing Russian Roulette. I never, knowingly, had sex with a positive person and, ta da--- here I am, positive!!

It's not bullshit at all, James. Serosorting applies to both +/+ and -/- people having sex. It is the neg/neg serosorts that may increase the risk of infection. There is no way to be sure that anyone is negative, unless they have been in a monogamous relationship with another negative person (or abstained, of course). So, for the more casual neg/neg hook-ups, how does one know that they or their sexual partner is really negative?? I'm not saying someone is not being truthful, they may truly think they are negative, but relying on someone's perceived negative status is like playing Russian Roulette. I never, knowingly, had sex with a positive person and, ta da--- here I am, positive!!

So, it is most definitely NOT bullshit!!

Mike

Mike,

In one way I totally agree with you. If the word 'serosorting, does actually apply to +/+ AND -/- then I got no problems.

However, think about it mate, for thousands of years nobody ever knowingly had sex with a person who had herpes (whatever other STD) but here they are with herpes. Now we have new STD = HIV, now we have new word = serosorting. Seems reasonable to me = + and +. How is it that the word 'serosorting' also refers to - and -? Because some "experts" want to make a name for themselves, want to make money?

How many ways do you have to be told the same thing? One can be seropositive or seronegative, that is either HIV+ or HIV-. Serosorting is the practice of sorting your partners so they have the same serostatus as yourself. Therefore, it can apply to +/+ or -/-.